Dover Intelligent Design Decision a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education

evolutionnews.org ^ | 12-21-05 | John West

[churchillbuff]

SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”

“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West. “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."

In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.

"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”

Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.

"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."

Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the world.

[indcons]

Pong

[mlc9852]

In the long run it may be the best thing for ID. It has gotten a lot of attention and people are curious. It may also drive more parents to home school, which is always a good thing.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Been posted twice already, sorry.

[MCCRon58]

Is the Theory of Evolution really so fragile as to be so threatened by the teaching of alternate viewpoints that it must now be protected by law???

Seems to this poor dumb high school ed-u-mi-cated truck driver that true science should stand on its own, without the need for a State enforced knowledge monopoly.

But then what do I know, not having the "benefit" of a college indoctrination, er, ah, I mean education.

[BikerNYC]

Yes, and not discussing in physics class how many angles can fit on the head of a pin is also a restriction on science education.

[Shadowfax]

"Is the Theory of Evolution really so fragile as to be so threatened by the teaching of alternate viewpoints that it must now be protected by law???"

Yes.

[moonman]

ditto

[sr4402]

Any good URLs for Intelligent Design? I keep finding fake ones which seen designed for debunking it.

[trebb]

Is the Theory of Evolution really so fragile as to be so threatened by the teaching of alternate viewpoints that it must now be protected by law???

It would appear so - otherwise why the terror over having it on the table?

[PatrickHenry]

If you take a little time to learn what the judge did and why he did it before you comment on it, you'll look a lot smarter than some of the others around here.

Here's the judge's opinion.

[newcthem]

I heard someone say yesterday that it was interesting that the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that is so precious and so fragile that it must be protected by laws and court orders. Interesting thought.

[Sacajaweau]

When our great country was beginning, we started the American Philosophical Society. SCIENCE should not LIMIT thinking.

[doc30]

the Theory of Evolution really so fragile as to be so threatened by the teaching of alternate viewpoints that it must now be protected by law???

No, the proponents of ID are so ignorant that they have decided that ther very definition of science must be changed to include the supernatural. This isn't so much about evolution, but about keeping the uneducated and uninformed from deciding matters they know nothing about.

[NC28203]

>>>When our great country was beginning, we started the American Philosophical Society. SCIENCE should not LIMIT thinking.

Intelligent Design is not science. It generates no testable hypotheses and otherwise does not conform with the scientific method. This does not mean ID is not true. It simply means that the existence of an intelligent designer is not a question that science can address.

[doc30]

SCIENCE should not LIMIT thinking.

In some ways, science does limit thinking because a scientific theory must fit the observed facts. ID has no observed facts to support it, therefore cannot be considered inside the realm of science. Science is not the realm of free thinking. If you want that, hang out in a local coffee shop or take some classes in philosophy.

[Clara Lou]

otherwise why the terror over having it on the table?
Because ID is not science. The theory of evolution is truly a scientific theory, with all of the required parts. That's all there is to it. Just as soon as ID folk can present ID as a scientific theory (statement of theory, collection of observable evidence, etc.), it becomes science and is teachable as science.

[MCCRon58]

"""The proponents of ID are so ignorant that they have decided that ther very definition of science must be changed to include the supernatural. This isn't so much about evolution, but about keeping the uneducated and uninformed from deciding matters they know nothing about."""

I notice that rather than addressing the point, you chose, instead to attack the idea of Intelligent Design. If, as you say, it is just "supernatural". than will it not die of its own volition as other beliefs and theory's gain prominence through scientific proof?

I wonder, though, if your unwillingness to allow divergent views stems from some lack of belief in the evolutionary theory, and such do not think it can withstand the challenge of another view.
Again, truth doesn't need that force of law in order to be true. When you stifle alternate viewpoints, you run the risk of missing the next scientific break through because it doesn't "fit" the existing theory.

I seem to remember something about the belief that the earth was the center of the universe being in such a similar position a few centuries ago?

If, as you appear to believe, evolution is such a "truth" than what is the harm in saying something on the order of "this is an alternative view, and these are the facts that prove it wrong".?

A closed mind, is a closed mind, regardless of the theory!

[xzins]

looks like a rehash of other threads...

[wallcrawlr]

Evo's wont tolerate any tolerance for discussion bookmark.